... underfunded NSA. What a joke. The true budget for the NSA is classified, correct? Forgive me if I have no sympathy for an agency shrouded in secrecy in a supposed "transparent" democracy.
For reference for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about
Don't worry about us, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about. I see no evidence that TPB has opened this picture hosting site "with it being a haven for child pornography in mind."
In regard to the link you provided: the site in question which was hosted was a pedophilia discussion site. There was no child pornography involved. Just because someone mentions the words "pedophilia" and "website" in the same sentence doesn't mean you have to respond with the predictable, "OMG child pr0n and pedos, what evil horrible bastards, all individual rights and liberties are now void!"
Unless you can clearly demonstrate to me that your Constitutional rights have actually been revoked, perhaps you should reconsider your statements that we are becoming like China.
This is why I brought up the warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. Although I did not insist that the eavesdropping program is the action of the president alone, he bears a lot of responsibility for it's initial approval and later cover-up (i.e. if you stop this domestic spying program, the terrorists will win). I don't care if congress, my grandmother, and the holy pope approve of warrantless wiretaps, they're still unconstitutional (as at least two lower federal courts have also held). I'm not arguing that we are "like China", but neither will I use China's political system as a barometer for our own. You have repeatedly asked for demonstrations of Constitutional violations or government power-grabs, and posters have repeatedly provided them for you. As Americans, questioning the government is our patriotic duty. I apologize if you find my tone hostile, but I can't help but question why you feel the need to continually downplay or minimize our losses of freedom, no matter how small or insignificant they may seem.
You want evidence that the President ignores the Constitution?
Look no further than the so-called, "Terrorist Surveillance Program". Eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant (or any judicial oversight whatsoever) violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Do you have an excuse for that one?
The 5th amendment to the United States constitution states that
No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Oh, there's some redundancy too. The 14th amendment states that
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Not even the cherished and oft-cited 1st and 2nd amendments are reiterated!
The reason for the repetition is that the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government, while the 14th Amendment applies these same protections to the states. The 14th Amendment also makes First Amendment protections applicable to the states.
The Constitution states that we can't be forced to self-incriminate, and that is where unlawful searches and such come from.
You realize these are different Amendments, right? (5th and 4th, respectively)
If you have probable cause, you can search without a warrant.
No, you need probable cause to get a warrant. You're likely thinking of stop and frisk searches, in which case a police officer needs reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity is occurring, and even then an officer may only conduct a limited search of a person (a "pat down" for weapons). In any case, you clearly need to do a bit more reading and research.
Lastly, I have not seen a single statement from the White House or any US government official requesting the ability to detail American citizens indefinitely without either charges or due process. There was a controversial provision about detaining immigrants deemed terrorists basically without due process, but it made several clear provisions against applying to American citizens. If you have clear factual evidence that any government official intends to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges or legal due process, that would be very clear grounds for impeachment.
Then you haven't been paying attention. That is precisely what this entire debate about enemy combatants is about. Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi were american citizens when they were detained for long periods of time without charges. Additionally, the U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez explicitly said during a senate hearing that: "There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution."
I agree that the last few years have seen some very ridiculous FUD from various places that have resulted in some very ridiculous laws and harsh sentences etc. I am not supporting those instances and I will always believe that there is room for improvement. But step back and look at the big picture. I'm not talking about as far back as a thousand or more years... but just two *hundred* to five hundred years or so and say that punishments are getting worse. Honestly...
I should have given some chronological context to my comment. You are correct, of course, but I shudder to think that we will compare modern punishments to those given hundreds of years ago. "Yeah, but during the Spanish Inquisition she would have been burned at the stake for showing porn to her students! 40 years isn't that bad at all!"
I am more distressed, in the last 20-30 years, about how many crimes are now felonies, and the increasing reliance on mandatory minimum sentencing.
Teachers don't get 4 years for doing it with students.
Don't put any ideas into the heads of legislators. Instead of decreasing the 40 year penalty for this crime, they'll just ramp up other punishments until they're 40 years. Kissing a student: 40 years. Waving hello suggestively to a student: 40 years. Having a student interpret your cough as sexual: 40 years. As far as I can tell, sentences almost never become more lenient, they just get progressively harsher and more draconian.
So you go to trial. So you're acquitted. But by the time you get acquitted, you're front page news in all the local newspapers. You're getting death threats. Your family is shunned. You get let go from your job because you're bringing too much controversy. Your life, not to put too fine a point on it, is fucked.
And what does this have to do with hidden containers? Your life is fucked at the point that you are initially questioned or arrested. If the cops are going to be so underhanded as to pursue a conviction based on a possible hidden container premise, why do you think they would necessarily stop if you tried to "prove the existence of all your data"? What's to stop them from claiming you were hiding encrypted illegal files in the slack space, that they must have been recently erased, or even planting some? Why would these hypothetical corrupt evil policemen suddenly be your friend if you weren't using encryption?
Besides, that is all irrelevant. You're discussing a strict liability crime. It doesn't matter how many tips or witnesses the prosecution may have against you. It's the possession that matters. The only thing worse than slashdot armchair lawyers are slashdot armchair legal scholars.
Are you advocating that we scour the internet for people who are confessing to crimes? That is not the issue in the Livejournal situation; rather, LJ has been removing journals for users that express an interest (for any reason) in undesirable activities such as incest, pedophilia, etc.
What do defenders of the First Amendment have to do with reporting abuse? If someone admits they are committing a crime, they can be investigated and arrested. If someone just writes, "I think diddling kids is cool," they have committed no crime. In your own convoluted, simple-minded way, I think you are trying to argue that we should be removing content on the internet which promotes or encourages crime. Your example of a Florida case in which a publisher was found guilty as an accessory to murder (a link or case cite would have been helpful) is vastly different from the LJ debacle. There are no impending arrests of the LJ users who have been banned. I have not read all of the banned journals, but it is highly doubtful that any criminal convictions are possible, unless they were specifically encouraging or soliciting individuals to commit crimes. My understanding is that many of the journals which were removed were purely works of fiction (that means not real).
If more people thought like you (and thankfully they do not), whole portions of our popular culture would have to be suppressed. Much of the popular fiction, video games, and movies available today could be considered to be "promoting" illegal activities of one sort or another.
ps - It's quite possible that I am misinterpreting your views. I apologize if that is the case.
We all as (hopefully) sane humans need to police the internet, consider it neighborhood watch if you like.
Good idea. All the humans in the world will police the internet, and try to remove any objectionable content. In fact, I think we should have this internet-neighborhood-watch group centered in one country for easy administration. I pick Iran. The Mullahs can help determine what should be off-limits. Any objections?
Look at the percentage of citizens in Iraq that went to vote and then the percentage of Americans that vote. Remember the Iraqis were threatened with death if they showed at polling locations.
Another factor, however, is that Iraqis didn't have nearly as many restrictions on voting as Americans. The U.S. let anyone who appeared slightly human to vote in the Iraqi elections, because it was in their best interest to have a high voter turnout. Inside the U.S., there are many restrictive conditions placed on voter registration, which due to confusion about timing and residency requirements, keeps many Americans away from the voting booths. Many states also do not allow felons to vote, which is a significant portion of the population (and growing).
This still doesn't explain America's pitiful voter turnout, but it is certainly something to consider when comparing the "purple-finger" Iraqi elections to a U.S. election.
Also, the Iraqis may have been threatened with death if they showed up at polling booths, but the U.S. army also had a complete lockdown in specified areas during election time. It was likely much safer to go out during the election than on most other days.
I know this is probably a tired response, but you can instantly make 98% of Americans think this is a good idea if you claim it (A) helps to fight the terrorists, and/or, (B) protects the innocent children from scary online predators.
Think of how much bandwith usage has increased by average consumers in the last 5 years with the advent of streaming video and music, pay-for-content services, etc. Charging ISP customers using a metered system could stifle innovation and the market if people suddenly became concerned with how many videos they are watching on youtube or interfering with how much music they choose to purchase off of itunes.
Besides, is there any doubt that the packages U.S. telecom companies would introduce would suck hairy donkey-balls? I can see it now:
Verizon's one-time only deal: 2 gb down and 256 mb up per month for only $49.95! Or get our super mondo-eXtreme internet-package of 4 gb/down a month for only $69.95! Act now! (What's that? We're the only ISP in your area? Too bad!)
While/. usually is all for privacy in cases such as this I believe the sex offender made a choice to give up their privacy as soon as they performed the criminal act.
If you are arguing that when one commits a crime they are tacitly also making a choice to accept the known consequences, such as imprisonment and loss of privacy, then your argument is flawed in relation to sex offenders. Sex offenders, unlike other classes of criminals, are often forced to submit to new legislative restrictions after their conviction. One year they can't live within 200 feet of a school. The next year they can't live within 10 miles of a school. The year after that they have to wear a GPS tracking bracelet. The year after that (oh, the horror), they can't go on MySpace. At this point, there is no way someone can contemplate all the possible future restrictions and punishments which he/she will be forced to endure when they commit a sex-offense. The sex-offense witch-hunt hysteria is just evolving too quickly.
You get a phone call at work saying your wife is in critical condition because someone on a PCP binge raped her for 6 hours and threw her out of a mooving car. You spend the next 6 months at the hospital every moment you can, while she sits as a vegetable in a coma. In the meantime, your kids are neglected, not only because you are spending what time you can with your wife, but they don't have their mother around... then she wakes up. While over the next year, through physical therapy, she gets physically better, but she doesn't talk... to you or anybody else. Most of her day is spent crying. She pulls away when you try to touch her. She can't even sleep in the same bed as you.
It depends. Is his wife a sex-offender? If so, she deserves that and more!
Those who break these type of laws and are still at risk for doing it again should have restricted privacy for the safety of others. More so when it involves innocent defenseless children.
You're taking a bold stand there, chief. It's not often that you hear someone in the U.S. coming to the defense of the innocent children, especially in support of laws which have been shown to have little or no effect in protecting those children. Sigh.
It may be a virtual act between consenting adults, but SL is full of underage people. If people want to engage in graphic virtual sex, they need to do so in a forum that is adults-only, for the same reason that real consenting adult sex is not legal in public.
What I find troubling is that people here are defending Child Porn, even virtual, on ANY level.
Throw your brain in the dryer, it's thoroughly washed! I'll defend virtual child porn on every level. If two adults want to roleplay in fantasy la-la land as giraffes, grandmas, or kids what the hell do I care? Why do you care? Do you support the surveillance of married couples' bedrooms to make sure they are not involved in ageplay? Do you honestly believe someone who draws a picture of two 16 year olds having sex should be thrown in prison for life?!?
Slashdot Mirror
... underfunded NSA. What a joke. The true budget for the NSA is classified, correct? Forgive me if I have no sympathy for an agency shrouded in secrecy in a supposed "transparent" democracy.
Don't worry about us, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about. I see no evidence that TPB has opened this picture hosting site "with it being a haven for child pornography in mind."
In regard to the link you provided: the site in question which was hosted was a pedophilia discussion site. There was no child pornography involved. Just because someone mentions the words "pedophilia" and "website" in the same sentence doesn't mean you have to respond with the predictable, "OMG child pr0n and pedos, what evil horrible bastards, all individual rights and liberties are now void!"
You want evidence that the President ignores the Constitution?
Look no further than the so-called, "Terrorist Surveillance Program". Eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant (or any judicial oversight whatsoever) violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Do you have an excuse for that one?
No, you need probable cause to get a warrant. You're likely thinking of stop and frisk searches, in which case a police officer needs reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity is occurring, and even then an officer may only conduct a limited search of a person (a "pat down" for weapons). In any case, you clearly need to do a bit more reading and research.
Then you haven't been paying attention. That is precisely what this entire debate about enemy combatants is about. Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi were american citizens when they were detained for long periods of time without charges. Additionally, the U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez explicitly said during a senate hearing that: "There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution."
Unnecessary? Do large corporations have such a good track record that you trust them implicitly?
Unconstitutional? See the commerce clause.
George Bush (the idiot president how can't even speak properly)
Bush is stupid, his actions speak for them self.
Make sure you look in the mirror before you call someone ugly.
I am more distressed, in the last 20-30 years, about how many crimes are now felonies, and the increasing reliance on mandatory minimum sentencing.
Teachers don't get 4 years for doing it with students.
Don't put any ideas into the heads of legislators. Instead of decreasing the 40 year penalty for this crime, they'll just ramp up other punishments until they're 40 years. Kissing a student: 40 years. Waving hello suggestively to a student: 40 years. Having a student interpret your cough as sexual: 40 years. As far as I can tell, sentences almost never become more lenient, they just get progressively harsher and more draconian.
So you go to trial. So you're acquitted. But by the time you get acquitted, you're front page news in all the local newspapers. You're getting death threats. Your family is shunned. You get let go from your job because you're bringing too much controversy. Your life, not to put too fine a point on it, is fucked.
And what does this have to do with hidden containers? Your life is fucked at the point that you are initially questioned or arrested. If the cops are going to be so underhanded as to pursue a conviction based on a possible hidden container premise, why do you think they would necessarily stop if you tried to "prove the existence of all your data"? What's to stop them from claiming you were hiding encrypted illegal files in the slack space, that they must have been recently erased, or even planting some? Why would these hypothetical corrupt evil policemen suddenly be your friend if you weren't using encryption?
Besides, that is all irrelevant. You're discussing a strict liability crime. It doesn't matter how many tips or witnesses the prosecution may have against you. It's the possession that matters. The only thing worse than slashdot armchair lawyers are slashdot armchair legal scholars.
look the words up if you need to.
Ha! Insults are the first refuge of idiots.
Are you advocating that we scour the internet for people who are confessing to crimes? That is not the issue in the Livejournal situation; rather, LJ has been removing journals for users that express an interest (for any reason) in undesirable activities such as incest, pedophilia, etc.
What do defenders of the First Amendment have to do with reporting abuse? If someone admits they are committing a crime, they can be investigated and arrested. If someone just writes, "I think diddling kids is cool," they have committed no crime. In your own convoluted, simple-minded way, I think you are trying to argue that we should be removing content on the internet which promotes or encourages crime. Your example of a Florida case in which a publisher was found guilty as an accessory to murder (a link or case cite would have been helpful) is vastly different from the LJ debacle. There are no impending arrests of the LJ users who have been banned. I have not read all of the banned journals, but it is highly doubtful that any criminal convictions are possible, unless they were specifically encouraging or soliciting individuals to commit crimes. My understanding is that many of the journals which were removed were purely works of fiction (that means not real).
If more people thought like you (and thankfully they do not), whole portions of our popular culture would have to be suppressed. Much of the popular fiction, video games, and movies available today could be considered to be "promoting" illegal activities of one sort or another.
ps - It's quite possible that I am misinterpreting your views. I apologize if that is the case.
It's obvious that this girl is interested -- otherwise, why else would she switch to Ubuntu?
Is this an admission that linux is so bad that someone must have an ulterior motive to want to use it?
incest is wrong folks.
Ok. Is writing about incest wrong too?
We all as (hopefully) sane humans need to police the internet, consider it neighborhood watch if you like.
Good idea. All the humans in the world will police the internet, and try to remove any objectionable content. In fact, I think we should have this internet-neighborhood-watch group centered in one country for easy administration. I pick Iran. The Mullahs can help determine what should be off-limits. Any objections?
ps - your ideas frighten me
Look at the percentage of citizens in Iraq that went to vote and then the percentage of Americans that vote. Remember the Iraqis were threatened with death if they showed at polling locations.
Another factor, however, is that Iraqis didn't have nearly as many restrictions on voting as Americans. The U.S. let anyone who appeared slightly human to vote in the Iraqi elections, because it was in their best interest to have a high voter turnout. Inside the U.S., there are many restrictive conditions placed on voter registration, which due to confusion about timing and residency requirements, keeps many Americans away from the voting booths. Many states also do not allow felons to vote, which is a significant portion of the population (and growing).
This still doesn't explain America's pitiful voter turnout, but it is certainly something to consider when comparing the "purple-finger" Iraqi elections to a U.S. election.
Also, the Iraqis may have been threatened with death if they showed up at polling booths, but the U.S. army also had a complete lockdown in specified areas during election time. It was likely much safer to go out during the election than on most other days.
who could ever think this was a good idea?
I know this is probably a tired response, but you can instantly make 98% of Americans think this is a good idea if you claim it (A) helps to fight the terrorists, and/or, (B) protects the innocent children from scary online predators.
Think of how much bandwith usage has increased by average consumers in the last 5 years with the advent of streaming video and music, pay-for-content services, etc. Charging ISP customers using a metered system could stifle innovation and the market if people suddenly became concerned with how many videos they are watching on youtube or interfering with how much music they choose to purchase off of itunes.
Besides, is there any doubt that the packages U.S. telecom companies would introduce would suck hairy donkey-balls? I can see it now:
Verizon's one-time only deal: 2 gb down and 256 mb up per month for only $49.95! Or get our super mondo-eXtreme internet-package of 4 gb/down a month for only $69.95! Act now! (What's that? We're the only ISP in your area? Too bad!)
How come no one asks the following question, since the punishments for such offenses at this point are nearly equal to rape:
What's worse? Being inappropriately touched or being murdered?
While /. usually is all for privacy in cases such as this I believe the sex offender made a choice to give up their privacy as soon as they performed the criminal act.
If you are arguing that when one commits a crime they are tacitly also making a choice to accept the known consequences, such as imprisonment and loss of privacy, then your argument is flawed in relation to sex offenders. Sex offenders, unlike other classes of criminals, are often forced to submit to new legislative restrictions after their conviction. One year they can't live within 200 feet of a school. The next year they can't live within 10 miles of a school. The year after that they have to wear a GPS tracking bracelet. The year after that (oh, the horror), they can't go on MySpace. At this point, there is no way someone can contemplate all the possible future restrictions and punishments which he/she will be forced to endure when they commit a sex-offense. The sex-offense witch-hunt hysteria is just evolving too quickly.
Those who break these type of laws and are still at risk for doing it again should have restricted privacy for the safety of others. More so when it involves innocent defenseless children.
You're taking a bold stand there, chief. It's not often that you hear someone in the U.S. coming to the defense of the innocent children, especially in support of laws which have been shown to have little or no effect in protecting those children. Sigh.
What I find troubling is that people here are defending Child Porn, even virtual, on ANY level.
Throw your brain in the dryer, it's thoroughly washed! I'll defend virtual child porn on every level. If two adults want to roleplay in fantasy la-la land as giraffes, grandmas, or kids what the hell do I care? Why do you care? Do you support the surveillance of married couples' bedrooms to make sure they are not involved in ageplay? Do you honestly believe someone who draws a picture of two 16 year olds having sex should be thrown in prison for life?!?
2017, the year of the linux desktop!